ADJOURNMENT 9:50 PM a012203

Parente Precise Development Plan

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Smith, Commissioners Greenberg, Collins, and Stein

Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Snow

Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, and Meeting Recorder Morales

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:

John Kunzweiler, Norman Way Homeowners Association, asked for an update on the status of the Tiburon Glen project with regards of the schedule of upcoming meetings, status of Draft EIR, and public comment process. Community Development Director Anderson stated that additional material requested from the applicant regarding the landslide repair plan was received and forwarded to the EIR sub-consultants. All but one of the sub-consultants returned their analysis to the EIR preparer. The EIR preparer is working on the response to comments, which is expected to be ready for distribution sometime in February. Once the document has been distributed, a Planning Commission hearing will be held. However, a specific date has not been set. Should the hearing date conflict with the deadline of the Marin County Court hearing, an extension will be requested.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Community Development Director Anderson stated that the annual Town Council staff retreat was held on January 21, 2003, and the primary topic of discussion was revenue enhancement.

In response to Chair Smith, Senior Planner Watrous stated that it is unknown when the Parente project will be scheduled for another hearing, as revised plans have not been received.

 DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. REFERRAL FROM TOWN COUNCIL: REVIEW OF SECTION 2.05.01(2) OF THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-2 ZONE

Community Development Director Anderson stated that currently the R-2 zone allowed one single-family dwelling, or two dwelling units in a single building, or two units in two buildings if approved by the Design Review Board based on factors such as terrain, lot size, lot configuration, or other physical considerations. The current discussion was triggered by two separate appeals of the Design Review Board’s approval of two dwelling units in two separate buildings in Old Tiburon. During the appeal, the Town Council directed the Planning Commission to study and recommend whether modifications would be appropriate to the existing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance regarding two separate dwellings in the R-2 zone. Community Development Director Anderson then briefly summarized the history of the R-2 zone uses allowed by right since 1967, stating that at one time the ambiguity of the wording "one or two family dwellings" led to different interpretations over the years. Therefore, the matter was presented to the Planning Commission for clearer interpretation in 1989, at which time the Commission clarified that the intent was to allow one unit or a conventional duplex, but not two detached single family dwellings. In 1990, when the Zoning Ordinance was revised, the R-2 zone issue was raised again. The Planning Commission recommended further clarification of R-2 zoning to allow one single-family dwelling, or one two-family dwelling, or two single-family dwellings provided the lot size was a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Given the controversy raised by the proposed modifications, the Town Council appointed a Zoning Committee to review the issue and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. In November of 1990, the revised Zoning Ordinance was approved containing language for the R-2 zone as currently is reflected in Section 2.05.01, deleting the requirement for a minimum lot size for two separate dwellings.

Senior Planner Watrous summarized the history of relevant applications, stating that between 1990 and 2001, only two R-2 properties have been developed with two dwelling units in two separate buildings. The first was the Williams property at 1860 and 1864 Centro West Street, which was deemed complete in 1990 and processed under the prior zoning ordinance. The Town denied the application, but lost a subsequent lawsuit which compelled the Town to approve not only the two units, but also condominiumization of the units. The second project was approved in 1999 at 160 & 162 Solano Street, but records reflected very little information regarding whether the Design Review Board considered the factors required by the R-2 zone in approving this project. Although several concerns were raised, the Planning Commission subsequently approved a conditional use permit to condominiumize this project.

Senior Planner Watrous stated that the project that triggered the current discussion was located at 2355 Paradise Drive where two detached two-family dwellings were proposed. During the review of the proposal, neighboring property owners Sue and Wally Quinn conducted a study which concluded that there were 249 R-2 lots, and of those 117 were larger than 7,500 square feet. Also, 43 of the 249 lots had the legal ability to increase the number of dwellings from one to two, and many lots contained older homes which could be replaced in the near future with two separate dwellings. After reviewing the information provided, the majority of the Design Review Board determined that two structures could be approved based on the narrowness of the property, the elevation change between the front and rear of the property, and the fact that the property could be accessed from both Paradise Drive and Vista del Mar Lane. The majority of the Board also determined that separation of the structures resulted in less building mass. The Town Council heard two separate appeals of the Board’s action, and partially granted one of the appeals regarding design issues, but denied the Quinns’ appeal regarding compliance with the R-2 zoning requirements. As part of the Council’s deliberation, it was agreed that it would be appropriate to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission to determine whether the criteria for approving units in separate structures should be modified to require findings similar to those required for a variance, and whether the ordinance should reflect a preference for two-family units to have the appearance of a single-family dwelling.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that there was a pending application to construct two dwellings in separate structures on an R-2 lot at 1790 Centro West Street, which application would not be affected since it is unlikely that any zoning ordinance changes would occur prior to the Design Review Board hearing scheduled for February 20, 2003.

Community Development Director Anderson stated opponents generally believed that the current R-2 zone text was overbroad, easily subject to differing interpretations by different Boards and Staff, did not protect the character of Old Tiburon, and would result in long-term changes in the pattern of development. Opponents also feel that the intent of Section 2.05.01 was that it should be applied only on extreme or unusual physical conditions of a lot where two separate buildings would be considered a superior approach. Supporters of the current text believe it allows flexibility to review projects on a case-by-case basis and determine whether detached units are appropriate based on physical conditions. Additionally, supporters do not believe the character of Old Tiburon would be threatened by detached two-family dwellings. Community Development Director Anderson stated that some of the issues to be considered by the Commission in making a determination were as follows: 1) would the character of Old Tiburon be threatened by proliferation of detached two-family dwellings or by potentially accelerated condominiumization of property? 2) is the example set by the project at 160 & 162 Solano Street acceptable?; 3) is the specificity of direction given by Section 2.05.01 adequate?; and 4) is the level of discretion given to the Design Review Board appropriate?

Some of the options available to the Commission were:

Adding a statement indicating strong preference for a single building that closely resembles a single-family home even if it contains two units.

Clarify language to require that only under extreme or unusual physical conditions will a detached two-family dwelling be considered.

Require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for detached two-family dwellings.

Develop specific criteria that must be met prior to qualifying for detached units.

Adopt an "exception-like" procedure that would require specific findings to be made before allowing a detached two-family dwelling.

Adopt a formal "variance" procedure for allowing a detached two-family dwelling.

Community Development Director Anderson stated that he had reservations regarding the "variance" option because of potential legal ramifications. He concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission: 1) simply review the material, accept public comment, and continue this matter to a future hearing; or 2) should it be determined that no modifications are necessary, direct Staff to forward said recommendation to the Council; or 3) should the Commission determine that modifications were necessary, indicate preference among the options discussed and direct Staff to return with refinements for more discussion.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that Design Review Board Chair Mike Figour and Boardmember Bill McLaughlin were present to respond to questions.

In response to Commissioner Stein, Community Development Director Anderson stated that the state law recently passed regarding permitting procedures for secondary dwelling units would have no implications on the matter before the Commission, since R-2 zone is designed to have two units, provided development standards can be met. Secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the R-2 zones; only in single-family zones. Community Development Director Anderson also noted that accessory buildings would still be allowed in the R-2 zone as long as they are strictly accessory and incidental to the primary residence.

Members of the audience were invited to comment.

Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated that she has resided at this location since 1986. She stated that her objective was to demonstrate that the current text needed to be rewritten as it affected visual density and must be dealt with before additional similar applications are submitted. She presented a drawing showing the location of existing R-2 zoned lots, stating that the vision for Old Tiburon was to: 1) have the look and feel of single-family homes, while providing valuable rental housing; 2) avoid looking radically different from the rest of Tiburon; 3) seriously consider density and parking; and 4) adopt a floor area ratio and lot coverage regulations to control the scale of homes. She stated that Section 2.05.01 was added to address vacant lots in the R-2 zone. She said that the intent of the section was also to avoid depriving owners of a fair use on lots where a single duplex structure would not work. She then briefly summarized the history of events that have taken place since the Zoning Ordinance was revised in 1990, commenting on the homes at 1860 & 1864 Centro West Street, 160 & 162 Solano Street, and the 2355 Paradise Drive project that has been approved, as well as the pending project at 1790 Centro West Street.

Ms. Quinn stated that in conducting a land use study of the R-2 area, a color-coded map was created to show lots less than 7,500 square feet in pink, lots from 7,500-10,000 square feet in orange, and those over 10,000 in green. Based on the statistics, 117 lots are eligible for two homes. Since these were older homes, she said that they will either need to be renovated within the next ten years or so, and/or ownership will likely change. She described a worst case scenario that an 8,000 square foot lot would be entitled to a 2,800 square foot home (35% FAR); if the 2,800 square feet are divided into two, 1,400 square foot homes each located on a 4,000 square foot lot and each condominiumized with 50% the end result would be 4,800 square feet built in an 8,000 square foot lot (60% FAR).

Senior Planner Watrous stated that Ms. Quinn’s statistics were incorrect, stating that when a property was condominiumized, the total FAR would be based on the overall size of the lot. If an 8,000 square foot lot was condominiumized, the FAR would remain at 2,800 square feet. The FAR for a 4,000 square foot lot is 10% plus 2,000 square feet, including a 600 square-foot garage, not 35%.

Community Development Director Anderson stated that Ms. Quinn’s theory could only be possible in case of a true lot split, which was highly unlikely to be approved because the resulting minimum lot size would create two new substandard lots. Splitting an 8,000 square foot would result in two 4,000 square foot lots which would be far below the Town's minimum lot size and violate the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Quinn stated that current wording of Section 2.05.01 did not provide the protection that was intended against two structures on one lot. She suggested replacing the current zoning language with the original text drafted in 1990, which states "Two single-family homes on one lot are not an approved use in the R-2 Zone." She said that possible alternatives could be to allow two detached homes if: 1) the lot size was a minimum of 10,000 square feet; 2) access was available from two different, real streets; 3) there was a deed restriction preventing condominiumization; 4) the floor area ratio was reduced by 25%; 5) the slope was 30% or greater; or 6) the lot width was 40 feet wide or less; and to add language expressing preference for a single-family look and feel.

In response to Commissioner Collins, Ms. Quinn stated that her personal definition of "visual density" was the appearance of one house on a 4,000 square foot lot vs. one house on an 8,000 square foot lot regardless of the size of the homes.

Alice Fredericks, 1 Cazadero Lane, stated that while the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners Association did not make specific recommendations at its recent meeting, there was a general consensus that the current zoning ordinance needed to be modified. Given the number of existing single-family homes that were due to be upgraded, and could possibly result in two family-dwelling lots, she felt that the character of Old Tiburon could be significantly altered. She stated that another concern raised was that two structures often either visually impact adjacent neighbors or create privacy problems. The Homeowners Association questioned how the current Ordinance would protect the character of Old Tiburon.

In response to Commissioner Stein, Ms. Fredericks stated that when considering the Aureguy project at 2355 Paradise Drive, the consensus of the Town Council was that the ordinance as written did not set forth a clear set of priorities, and therefore the Design Review Board’s decision was upheld. The matter was referred to the Commission to determine whether the ordinance needed to be modified.

Bill McLaughlin, Design Review Board Member, stated that in considering the project at 160 & 162 Solano Street, it was the sense of the Board that there were many unique situations and collateral issues. The Board took into account some very personal, problematic issues for a family in Tiburon. For very personal reasons, the project allowed the old structure to remain and a second structure to be built. He agreed, though, that that project was not the best example. However, he could point out other duplexes that were much more aesthetically unpleasant. In the Aureguy case, the Board determined that it was appropriate to approve the proposed project, and could be appropriate in other situations. In his opinion, two buildings were more consistent with the small town character of Old Tiburon than larger, single-structure duplexes.

In response to Commissioner Stein, architect Hank Bruce stated that the 160 & 162 Solano Street project was intended to be condominiumized all along.

Mike Figour, Design Review Board Chair, asked that Board members be included in the revision process of the ordinance since they felt they were often regarded as the guardians of design in Tiburon .

Mr. Bruce stated that it was important to not over-legislate design. In his opinion, the ordinance as written was clear and allowed for denial of a project if necessary. He noted that while concerns had been raised with regard to the preservation of the character of Old Tiburon, the existing character of Old Tiburon was multi-faceted, textured, and soft. He concluded by stating that architects as professionals felt the responsibility to protect design.

The public comment portion of the meeting was closed.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that the ordinance as written was unclear and very discretionary because it did not set forth priorities. With regard to the issue of one structure vs. two structures, she agreed that there were cases in which two structures were appropriate. However, she felt that the ordinance as written almost allows anybody to get two units if they so desired. She did not support the two street access concept. She was appalled that the Aureguy project was allowed to have access off Vista Del Mar Lane, which is a substandard street in terms of parking and access. She also agreed that the housing stock in Old Tiburon was really mixed, with some clearly ready for upgrading. She thought that it was likely that those homes would be replaced with two units. She concluded that in order to preserve the cottage character, it might be appropriate, under limited circumstances, to allow two buildings as long as one of them was larger than the other, but not both of the same size.

In response to Commissioner Stein, Community Development Director Anderson stated that even if two detached dwellings were allowed, all land and structure regulations would still apply, including setback requirements. Senior Planner Watrous clarified that setback requirements did not apply to two dwellings in relation to each other, but in relation to the property lines.

Commissioner Stein stated that if Ms. Quinn’s projections were accurate, replacing single-family dwellings on 30-40 lots with two dwellings on each would be problematic. Therefore, he agreed that the ordinance as written did not foster good planning. While he agreed with Mr. Bruce with regard to allowing some flexibility to architects, the ordinance would have to be modified so that it cannot be easily misinterpreted.

In response to Commissioner Collins, Community Development Director Anderson stated that one of the primary functions of the Planning Commission was to make recommendations to the Council regarding land use policy.

Chair Smith found that the basic concept of the ordinance was appropriate and that no significant modifications were necessary. In his opinion, Section 2.05.01 clearly stated that a person could get "one single-family dwelling, two dwelling units in a single building, or two buildings if . . ." His interpretation of the "or in two buildings if…" meant that there was option one, option two, and if the criteria for physical characteristics were met, then two dwelling units in two buildings could be allowed. Therefore, he agreed that the ordinance needed some fine tuning to avoid ambiguity.

Chair Smith then made the following comments: 1) setting a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size was not an appropriate approach; 2) it was questionable whether Old Tiburon could be characterized as a single-family dwelling community; and 3) projects proposing two dwelling units in two separate buildings could be required to obtain Planning Commission approval for the two separate buildings prior to going to the Design Review Board.

Commissioner Stein expressed concern that if appropriate modifications are not made to the ordinance, the end result may be small homes on many small lots. Therefore he asked for better articulation of what the concern was with having small lots, and what would be the advantages or disadvantages of having two small homes, each on a small lot.

Senior Planner Watrous stated while it would be difficult to articulate what the disadvantages of having small lots would be, one of the concerns raised was that it could become a de facto up-zoning. Community Development Director Anderson further noted that another concern with allowing the ability to have smaller lots was that, over time, density increased. Particularly in Old Tiburon, a higher density would not be appropriate because of the existing substandard streets and inadequate parking. He noted that the General Plan did not encourage increased density in Old Tiburon.

Commissioner Collins was not concerned regarding the small lot issue because the Town controls this through the condominiumization process.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that some change needs to be made to Section 2.05.01. The Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the February 26, 2003 meeting, and directed Staff to draft a resolution of intent to the Town Council to consider a zoning ordinance amendment. At that meeting, the Commission will review the resolution and possibly forward it to the Town Council. It was the consensus of the Commission that notices would be sent out to all R-2 zoned property owners when more specific zoning text amendment language has been prepared.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.

______________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY